Protestants, how can this be possible?

[luke1_28]

Grace, thank you so very much:thumbsup:

The simple point that either has not been addressed ot dummy me didn’t get is that the Bible. both the King James and the Catholic Bible quote 2 Tim. 3: 16 and proclaiming the single truth that the Bible is Divenely Inspired. Correct?

If the bible is IN FACT Divinely inspired, and IF both Catholics and Protestants grasp this reality; then on what basis did Protestantism began:shrug:

Your bible has fewer books, and numerious changes were made to the text of the Catholic bible.

What possible justification and esplaination can there be for this? Either the then 1100 year old Catholic Bible is true and inspired or its not? it can’t be both?

Love and prayers, and thanks for you’re patience with me

What possible justification and esplaination can there be for this? Either the then 1100 year old Catholic Bible is true and inspired or its not? it can’t be both?

It wasn’t meant this way to begin with. That’s the answer…

I try to put myself in the mind of Christ as much as I can - and then being a father myself, wonder how God feels as He looks on His children that can’t dine at the same supper table because they can’t get along. Then it becomes clear what Christ meant when He prayed His High Priestly prayer of John 17. I gather He prayed for Unity so His brothers and sisters wouldn’t have questions like this to ask of each other.

Does my answer address scientifically or apolegetically each detail of the question? No. But it doesn’t really take a rocket scientist/apologist/philosopher/theologian (none of which I am - just a plain old recovering sinner here) to figure out the answer that it shouldn’t be this way to begin with…to even have these questions to ask…because in making God real as a Father, and to build a personal relationship with Him through His Son - we can easily see that God the Father aches for unity as any good father does for his family.

Are protestants to blame? Yes. Are Catholics to blame? Yes. Blaming does no good though…but that’s all I got…because you asked the answer from protestants, I won’t butt in any longer…unless something glares at me…and being a good brother, I feel called to speak up… .

God bless you and I hope it bears the fruit of bringing more brothers and sisters Home,
luke1_28

 

[luke1_28]

Thank-you for a thoughtful exposition. Now, if I may, I’ll repeat my questions. You may have thought you were answering them, but I am unable to identify what of the above comments address the questions I actually asked.

The first three are Yes/No questions and I would appreciate a Yes or No answer to them, if you would please (Matthew 5:37). The last question gives you chance to expound to your hearts content on a subject I know is and respect as very dear to you.

1. Was Jesus bodily present in the bread (at Emmaus), but NOT in his person? YES
2. Was Jesus Really Present in both his manifested physical body AND in the bread that was broken at the same? YES
3. Is there a difference between Jesus’ Real Presence before the eyes of these disciples and in the bread? Only in the appearance. Christ was physically present in both His resurrected Body - and in the Body which used to be Bread.
4. What do you mean by Real Presence?

My Answers are in the quote - and to #4 is below…

I mean what Christ meant by Real Presence. John 6. Read it. Believe it. And you will understand it as either the disciples did who walked away, or the disciples who stayed. Because when the time of the Last Supper rolled around. Christ didn’t go through the discourse of John 6 again because He didn’t have to. He was the only one ever to claim that power and then at the Last Supper, gave it to His Apostles. This handing on of the power allows us Catholics to receive Him exactly as He wanted in the Last Supper.

The Real Presence is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Yes…even the Divinity. We take God into our bodies. We become God - not equal with God - but God seeks such communion with us and wants to be so intimate with us - that this is how He expresses it.

And that God - is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We receive God entirely and wholly. Which if anything - is completely amazingly mysterious…

From opusangelorum.org/Formation/Eucharist2.html:
St. Catherine of Siena expresses this entire mystery in a little effusive prayer:

O Trinity! Eternal Trinity! O, Fire, abyss of Love!
Would it not have been enough to create us after your own image and likeness,
causing us to be re-born through grace and by the Blood of Your Son?
Was it still necessary that You should give us even the Holy Trinity as food for our souls?
Yes, Your love willed this, O Eternal Trinity.
You gave us not only Your Word through Redemption and in the Eucharist.
But You also gave us Yourself in Your fullness of love for Your creature.
Truly the soul possesses You Who are the supreme Goodness.

And THAT is what Catholics mean by The REAL PRESENCE…can you understand it? More than likely not - can I understand it? No. Does that mean it isn’t true? No. You can’t understand the Trinity fully - nor will the Eucharist ever be understood fully.

And I restate - a personal relationship with Christ - cannot get more personal than that.

God bless,
luke1_28

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I noticed one other thing in your quesitoing of me. I see you are suggesting that the Catholic church is comfortable adding to the scripture. For, you said, “CC teaches that the Lord is ONE God.”

Are you really disagreeing with the CC’s teaching that the Lord is ONE God? Really, Grace?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Are you really disagreeing with the CC’s teaching that the Lord is ONE God? Really, Grace?

Another example of a Catholic who doesn’t take the time to actually digest what we Protestants are saying. First you challenged me with:

If you are proferring that God is NOT one, then you are not a member of the Christian faith, Grace Seeker.

And you did so even though I had already specifically stated:

Question: Would I as a rational creature agree that no reasonable person can hold “I believe that the Lord our God, the Lord is one” and “The Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God” at the same time?

Answer: No, I would not agree with that conclusion.

But I will give you that I did not make an actual declaratory statement. So I responded to you with a post that did indeed include a declaratory statement:

You said, “CC teaches that the Lord is ONE God.” . . . . I have no problem with this particular Catholic interpretation…

And yet you ask: “Are you really disagreeing with the CC’s teaching that the Lord is ONE God?”

Really, PR!! Don’t you pay attention?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Luke 1.28, I appreciate your succint responses, but I must admit confusion over what seem to be to be contradictory responses to #1 and #3.

In #1 you affirm that Jesus was bodily present in the bread at Emmaus, but NOT in his person. To me that means you do not believe that Jesus was bodily present at Emmaus when he broke the bread at supper with the disciples he had met on the road.

Then in #3 you declare that “Christ was physically present in both His resurrected Body - and in the Body which used to be Bread.” To me that means that he must be present in bodily form with the disciples at Emmaus when he broek the bread at supper.

But #1 and #3 can’t both be affirmed unless you are going to go even farther on the concept of two different truths being true at the same time than I am willing to allow for. Perhaps I’ve misread what you mean in #3, or maybe you didn’t notice the word “NOT” in #1. Would you mind clarifying this for me before I address the rest of your post? Thanks.

 

[jmcrae]

I think that it is easier to break away and create new sects once the first big break is made. One crack appears, then others, then the edifice crumbles.

So the Roman Catholic Church was the ‘only game in town’ for a long time, but then cracks began to appear–the Eastern Orthodox crack, then the Protestant crack, and so on.

That’s a good observation, and indeed, before Luther thought of founding Lutheranism as a separate religion, he had actually approached the Orthodox about setting up a German Patriarchy to set himself up as the Patriarch of the German Orthodox Church. The Orthodox were of course horrified and said “no” (since he was only a monk and not a Bishop, never mind someone qualified to become a Patriarch) which is when he came up with the idea of just starting up his own church.

If you’re Catholic, you’re probably very comfortable with the idea that your priest, bishop, or pope knows more than you.

It’s not so much that he knows more; it’s that he is the one who bears the responsibility. If I do something without his permission, he still has to take the blame for it if I get caught, so out of courtesy, I ask his permission if I want to do something out of the ordinary, or else I just do what he wants me to do, and that way, he doesn’t get in trouble for it if the Bishop disagrees with my idea. But if he goes ahead and does something without permission, then the Bishop gets in trouble from the Pope, so in order to keep the Bishop from getting in trouble, he asks the Bishop’s permission, or else he just does what he knows the Bishop wants him to do. The Pope doesn’t want to be struck down dead in his bed by God, so he is very careful to make sure that he is following the rules exactly how they are supposed to be followed, and also making sure as best he can that the rest of us also know what we are supposed to do.

I come from a Protestant tradition, and so I’m very comfortable switching congregations or even denominations. That comfort is probably just as baffling to you as your acceptance of someone else’s authority is to me.

I also came from a Protestant tradition, but it would not have occurred to me to move from the church established by my ancestors for anything other than my own salvation. I knew three Protestant ministers in my whole life. In the short time that I’ve been Catholic I’ve come to know more Catholic priests than I ever knew of Protestant members of clergy in the 40 years I was Protestant.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I asked this question in another thread, but didn’t get an asnwer. It was pointed out to me that the disciples walking to Emmaus knew Jesus in the breaking of the bread and that this was proof to substatiate the view that Jesus’ Real Presence is known in the breaking of the bread at a Catholic Eucharist.

My question then and still is, does this mean that Jesus was not bodily present except in the bread, but not in his person? Was Jesus Really Present in both his manifested physical body AND in the bread that was broken at the same? Is there a difference between Jesus’ Real Presence before the eyes of these disciples and in the bread?

In sum, what do you mean by Real Presence? For, you see, I too believe in Jesus’ real presence, but I don’t think that I mean it in the same way you do.

Hi again Grace Seeker,

Yes actually God is capable of any and every good. Catholic Holy Communion, REALLY is being the now “GLORIFIED BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY” of Jesus Himself. Christ is TRULY and literally present. “This IS My Body, This IS My Blood” appear in Mt., Mk., Lk., John and Paul.

Keep in mind at Pentecost Jesus cames through “locked doors.” In His Glorifed and present state for all time; Christ is fully God, and unlimited in what He can do, so long as it is Good. Being the worlds single most important source of grace is certainly a GOOD! So God can “bilocate” [being in two different places at the same time.]

It is [normally] only through the eyes of faith that one physically sees Jesus in the Eucharist. However, Google “Eucharisitic Miracles” and I promise you, you’ll get an “eye full!” There is no indication that the deciples, saw Christ, other than in Faith in the Eucharist, and with there eyes in person.

Love and prayers my friend,

Pat

 

[jmcrae]

1. Was Jesus bodily present in the bread (at Emmaus), but NOT in his person?

I’m not sure what this means. At Emmaus, at the moment that Jesus consecrated the bread and wine, His body, blood, soul, and divinity went out of the visible world, and displaced the bread and wine (the substance of the bread and wine was taken away into Heaven to be food for the Angels), while retaining the appearances of bread and wine.

1. Was Jesus Really Present in both his manifested physical body AND in the bread that was broken at the same?

Yes.

1. Is there a difference between Jesus’ Real Presence before the eyes of these disciples and in the bread?

There was a difference in appearance, only.

1. What do you mean by Real Presence?

That what appears to our eyes to be bread and wine is actually the glorified and risen Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. That you can pray to it and worship it; that you can expect it to perform miracles (though not necessarily “on demand” - it is, after all, Jesus; not a street performer).

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Hey, I’m glad that three different persons responded. I seriously had not grasped that Catholics understand that Jesus disappeared into the bread at Emmaus. I understood that you understood that it was his real body that composed the substance of the bread when you celebrate the Eucharist, but I didn’t realize that you did consider him really present with the disciples when he walked with them on the road to Emmaus and sat at the table with them, but that his Real Presence was only truly present in the bread itself, not in his person.

Am I actually understanding you correctly in this regard? If it wasn’t really Jesus, since neither of the disciple blessed nor broke the bread, then who was it that did?

 

[JRKH]

Hey, I’m glad that three different persons responded. I seriously had not grasped that Catholics understand that Jesus disappeared into the bread at Emmaus. I understood that you understood that it was his real body that composed the substance of the bread when you celebrate the Eucharist, but I didn’t realize that you did consider him really present with the disciples when he walked with them on the road to Emmaus and sat at the table with them, but that his Real Presence was only truly present in the bread itself, not in his person.

Am I actually understanding you correctly in this regard? If it wasn’t really Jesus, since neither of the disciple blessed nor broke the bread, then who was it that did?

How about a fourth response. Christ was Truly Present both in the “Person” that reclined at table AND, if the blessing He pronounced on the bread was the same as at the last supper, then He would have been Truly Present in the Bread as well. I qualify my statement about the blessing because the passage only says he blessed the bread which I believe would be common practice just as we would say grace. He may well have consectrated the Bread, I don’t know from my reading.

Assuming that Consecration took place then He would be wholly present in both places at the same time for He did not disappear until after He had begun distributing the Bread to those with Him.
This would be no different than today where Christ is made bodily present in many places at one time in the many masses offered around the world daily.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

Another example of a Catholic who doesn’t take the time to actually digest what we Protestants are saying.
Really, PR!! Don’t you pay attention?

You are correct, Grace, in that I did not have time to really digest your post. :sad_yes:

But let’s not generalize and get dramatic–I wasn’t representing Catholics at all, just Busy People. And it had nothing to do with your being Protestant, 'kay?

 

[PRmerger]

And yet you ask: “Are you really disagreeing with the CC’s teaching that the Lord is ONE God?”

Really, PR!! Don’t you pay attention?

Here’s why I asked, Grace. You posted:

Well, I noticed one other thing in your quesitoing of me. I see you are suggesting that the Catholic church is comfortable adding to the scripture. For, you said, “CC teaches that the Lord is ONE God.”

I don’t understand why you would claim that, unless you disagreed with the CC’s profession that the Lord is ONE God. We obviously didn’t make it up. Did we get it from Scripture, or did we add to Scripture? If we did ADD to Scripture, then you’ve accepted it by agreeing that the Lord is ONE God.

That’s all I’m saying.

Oh, and I’m also saying that you cannot be a reasonable person and believe X and Not-X at the same time.

Thus, you cannot say:

Jesus is 100% human

and

Jesus is NOT 100% human

and be a reasonable person.

 

[colved]

Yes, we are all sinners.

This is why, it is most important for The Church to be clear on what it DOES teach. So that those who truly wish to know can find out from Church Documents and not from, “sinful” Catholics.

Peace
James

those church documents were made by “sinful” catholics, as you put it. EVERYONE is a sinner, this does not exclude even the pope. Which is why we should follow the Word of God, which is incorruptable.

 

[PRmerger]

those church documents were made by “sinful” catholics, as you put it. EVERYONE is a sinner, this does not exclude even the pope. Which is why we should follow the Word of God, which is incorruptable.

If we follow your line of reasoning, colved, then Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were also “sinful”, and their writings would therefore be corruptible.

Do you believe that their writings were fallible, colved, or were sinful men protected from error by the Holy Spirit?

Of course, the Catholic perspective is that God uses sinful men, like Matthew, Mark, etc, and used them to create infallible teachings. Still does today!!

 

[PRmerger]

This would be no different than today where Christ is made bodily present in many places at one time in the many masses offered around the world daily.

Peace
James

Indeed.

And I’m assuming that no Christian here believes that the Lord of All Creation would NOT be able to be present in many places at one time. Nor would he NOT be able to “hold Himself in His hands” (as St. Augustine put it, I think!)…

Whether He did do this, is of course, another discussion.

Christians ought to acknowledge that He* could* do this, yes?

 

[JRKH]

those church documents were made by “sinful” catholics, as you put it. EVERYONE is a sinner, this does not exclude even the pope. Which is why we should follow the Word of God, which is incorruptable.

This is one of the saddest posts I have seen in awhile.
nowhere in my post, nor anywhere in Church teaching does it say that the pope or any other catholic today is sinless.
We do indeed follow the incorruptable word of God who is Jesus Christ, the Word incarnate.

Should we throw out every document that was Made by “sinful” people? How about the Book of Psalms? Written by one whos sins are well documented.

Should we dismiss any volume of work that was assembled by sinful men??
If so then the Bible itself becomes defective.
Why??
Because, while the books may be the inspired word of God, Not one of them tells us which books should be included in The Bible. That was determined by “sinful men.”

The fact that people sin does not automatically make null and void everything that they touch.
Example: A man is a drinker, not necessarily an Alcoholic but a pretty heave drinker. His drinking has led him inot all sorts of sin, including brawling, fornication, and blasphemy. He then, the Grace of God, becomes a committed Christian and makes forms a ministry to teach against the sin of drunkeness and it’s companion sin of licence. For 20 years, he travels and speaks extensively, and writes several beautiful and helpful books on the subject. During this time he also falls “off the wagon” three times, spending between 6 months and 2 years in this fallen state. Each time He recovers, rediscovers Christ’s mercy and goes on. Finally, after 25 years of ministry, He falls a lat time and before he can recover, he dies.
His speaches on tape, and his books - along with his own tragic story serve to encourage and save thousands of other heavy drinkers. Every one of his books and tapes contain absolutely accurate information on the evils of drink and it’s consequences, and even on his deathbed he professed that Drink was an evil sin and prayed to God to forgive him.

Now - Should we throw out or dismiss the Truth of this mans testimony just because he was a sinful man??

It is necessary in these things to seperate the teaching from the teacher. That is why the Catholic Catechism is so wonderful. I am not a scholar. I am not even that well educated. Left to my own devises I could misrepresent what The church teaches. The Catechism helps to prevent that.
Christ himself seperated the teachings from the teachers in Mt 23 where he says:
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
Thus, it is written that the teaching can remain True and Valid even though the teacher may be sinful.

I hope this will help you understand the church a bit more.

Peace
James

 

[PJM]

=Grace Seeker;5764341]Hey, I’m glad that three different persons responded. I seriously had not grasped that Catholics understand that Jesus disappeared into the bread at Emmaus. I understood that you understood that it was his real body that composed the substance of the bread when you celebrate the Eucharist, but I didn’t realize that you did consider him really present with the disciples when he walked with them on the road to Emmaus and sat at the table with them, but that his Real Presence was only truly present in the bread itself, not in his person.

Am I actually understanding you correctly in this regard? If it wasn’t really Jesus, since neither of the disciple blessed nor broke the bread, then who was it that did?

The Catholic Church defines a Sacrament as “an outward sign of an inward grace.” That definiations seems to fit the Most holy Eucharist quite well. If we are able [God decides] to look at te Eucharist through, Faith, Hope, and most importantly, LOVE, we are able to grasp the wonderous Majesty of Christ in our midst.

Today’s Saint is Saint Therese of “the small way” who died at the age of 24, and yet is one of three female “Doctors of the CC.” Here is somehing she said, that certainly applies to ones understanding of the Eucharist.“We cannot find love without sacrifice.” I think the opposite is just as true. There cannot be love without sacrifice. The Eucharsit is all about Love, all about sacrifice, all about a profound desire from God to be in a personal relationship with His Created.

Yes friend, your understanding is correct:thumbsup:

Love and prayers,

 

[luke1_28]

those church documents were made by “sinful” catholics, as you put it. EVERYONE is a sinner, this does not exclude even the pope. Which is why we should follow the Word of God, which is incorruptable.

And this is why we have thousands of splinters from the only Church established by Christ Himself. Electing oneself as pope gives us the ‘right’ to lead our own church…create our own religion…even though Scripture is replete with evidence throughout the Old Testament that the Father only wanted one true way to worship Him and sent His Son in the New Testament to fill in the blanks that sinful negotiating human beings just couldn’t get a handle on. Was Christ going to then leave man to His own devices without a game plan - the Church? Logic tells me no.

The “We will not submit” battle cry is one that faintly echoes “I will not serve”. Several Old Testament covenant breakers made choices not to submit. In the New Testament, where we see many breaking the New Covenant not yet established in the events of John 6, we wonder how much of that spirit got loose on the world as they turned away.

We see what humanity did to something created by God the Father in the Old Testament to pervert the way to worship Him as created by the Father. We see what humanity did to something created perfectly by God the Son to pervert it, then as a result the One Church wasn’t reformed so much as it became deformed.

Although it seems that Christianity will never be One as Christ prayed for, I have faith in the power that the Body and Blood of Christ can give to those who try to glorify God…and not themselves.

Since Christ Himself chose ‘sinful’ humanity to lead and use in His Church, then if we think like human beings, then we will always think no one deserves to lead. We will think like human beings and become the wandering Israelites who lost faith in Moses because of His imperfections. Our hope lies not in the actions of human beings and in being judgemental of them. Our hope, like Christ’s, lies in the power of God working through the children of God not judging them for what they do, but instead praying for them to lead the Church with the authority Christ gave them.

Therefore, the protestant reformation humanized Christ’s Church by making themselves gods enough to start their own. Judging human beings incapable of leading the Church when Christ entrusted His Apostles to do so and in a special way, St. Peter, is declaring Christ’s plan inferior to a plan that wasn’t develop until 1500 years after Christ.

I don’t see how this disregard for authority has ever helped the world. It definitely hasn’t brought about Church unity that Christ prayed for. The unchurched definitely are MORE susceptible to the world because of our bickering. They are more subjected to and victimized by sin because they cannot see the unity to know that the Father sent Christ. They have too many choices - and the choices themselves are all bickering with one another.

It must be overwhelming to the unchurched and can be likened to a stroll down the cereal aisle. That’s how we have cheapened God’s salvific plan and Christ’s Church. It isn’t about picking a box of cereal to see what kind you like better. God the Father didn’t provide it in the Old Testament. So why would Christ do so for the New Covenant?

Speaking from experience, in being tired of the world and getting your butt kicked by the devil, the way we have lived our life doesn’t work. You tire of the chaos…and how unmanageable your life has become. It’s about falling on your knees, declaring that Jesus Christ is Lord, and recognizing that you need help to overcome the life you have created for yourself living your will and as a result the hell and it’s minions that seeks to tear you apart.

God doesn’t make it hard on the poor souls - we do. Man stepped in and threw a monkey wrench in Christ’s salvific plan for the world. In just using logic and trust in God’s Mercy, we can understand that God would make it easier.

The Church Christ began can be found today, where a validly ordained priest is offering the Holy Sacrifice on an altar that symbolizes the altar of the Cross on Calvary - where the Lamb of God had to hang as He shed His Blood for mankind. This True Worship of God is found throughout the Old Testament as sacrifice and the consuming of the sacrifice was required - and the New Testament finds the Son making “all things new” - and becomes the Perfect Sacrifice Himself and we must consume Him as well.

God bless,
luke1_28

 

[jmcrae]

Hey, I’m glad that three different persons responded. I seriously had not grasped that Catholics understand that Jesus disappeared into the bread at Emmaus. I understood that you understood that it was his real body that composed the substance of the bread when you celebrate the Eucharist, but I didn’t realize that you did consider him really present with the disciples when he walked with them on the road to Emmaus and sat at the table with them, but that his Real Presence was only truly present in the bread itself, not in his person.

Am I actually understanding you correctly in this regard? If it wasn’t really Jesus, since neither of the disciple blessed nor broke the bread, then who was it that did?

What on earth are you talking about?

Jesus was truly Present with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, while He was walking with them, while He was at table with them, and in the species of the bread and wine, after it was consecrated.

He was not “less present” with them when He was appearing to them in His glorified body. The only difference between His presence in His glorified body, and His presence in the Eucharistic species, is that of appearance, only.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You are correct, Grace, in that I did not have time to really digest your post. :sad_yes:

But let’s not generalize and get dramatic–I wasn’t representing Catholics at all, just Busy People. And it had nothing to do with your being Protestant, 'kay?

So, I’m still Christian? I feel better.